Facebook and PwC pull video streaming report after questions over methodology
An attempt by Facebook to clear up the apparent confusion around how consumers are actually consuming content has gone awry, with its My Screen report being pulled from distribution after questions over its methodology.
Facebook commissioned PwC to provide a “balanced and independent view of the video market”, saying that there wasn’t a single source of truth telling the market where people are spending their time consuming content.
There are disagreements over how consumers are consuming content
The report, however, has since disappeared, with PwC and Facebook previously silent on what had gone wrong.
Now, however, Facebook has revealed there were some issues around “certain sub segments of the data”.
“We purposely selected PwC as an impartial consultancy to provide a balanced and independent view of the video market,” a Facebook spokesperson told Mumbrella.
“The majority of the report uses PwC’s own research data and provides an insightful view of the video ad market. We are aware that PwC are in discussions around certain sub segments of the data. We hope to have an update on this shortly. Until then we have decided to pause the distribution of the report in the market.”
Mumbrella understands the television industry took issue with the report due to its exclusion of connected TV viewing, which accounts for a large portion of broadcast video on demand (BVOD) viewing.
Facebook seemingly stands by a majority of the report though, and the reason for its creation – that is, industry challenges around gaining a complete picture across TV (linear or connected) together with other digital platforms.
PwC also said, despite the pause, it stands by the methodology.
“The majority of the My Screen report uses PwC’s own research data based on a consumer set of more than 3000 respondents. As clearly outlined in the report, the measurement framework for the video landscape in Australia is complex and fragmented. There are data limitations and these caveats have been clearly outlined in the report. We believe we’ve used the very best data sources that are available. We stand by the methodology used in the analysis and the importance of this research. We are currently validating a very small subset of industry sourced data and the report will be reissued once resolved,” a PwC spokesperson told Mumbrella.
The report attracted questions and criticism from those working in television, with Think TV’s Steve Weaver penning an opinion piece for AdNews, saying “it’s clear some of the numbers have been used to inflate, some to hide and others to completely bury the real story about video consumption”.
> “We purposely selected PwC as an impartial consultancy to provide a balanced and independent view of the video market,” a Facebook spokesperson told Mumbrella.
Well you’re more deluded than we thought!
User ID not verified.
Regardless of the final outcome of this study I’m not really surprised that they have a data issue. Facebook normally use their own data to prove their value and because they keep it in a black box normally no one can dispute what they say. This is another example of why we should all listen and leverage FB but we should also push for more verification from them, not just blind trust.
User ID not verified.
Perhaps Facebook & PwC could enlighten us, really enlighten us in fine detail, with how they measured and tallied what they have reported.
And then get that audited.
There are plenty of invalid crappy measures of media consumption.
User ID not verified.
PWC really misses having Megan Brownlow’s close understanding of the key media metrics and what they really mean.
User ID not verified.
“PwC as an impartial consultancy”. Going off that phrase I’d like to read the report just for its comedic value.
User ID not verified.
“We want impartiality, but in balance. Like the impartial bits that make us look good. And tell people how millennials are on Facebook too. Our customers love millennials.”
User ID not verified.
It’s pretty funny really. Probably went something like this:
Facebook: Let’s provide everyone with a more informed view of the video marketplace
PWC: Do you want to include connected TVs?
Facebook: No
User ID not verified.
So Facebook paid PWC to write an ‘independent’ report on their behalf….and the findings favour Facebook over every other broadcast channel.
Is this a joke?
Surely PWC have a building full of auditors who could have validated this unique view of the numbers…
User ID not verified.
Facebook wants everyone to have a clear picture of the video landscape, so releases a report ignoring the most popular device for video viewing.
And still counts a few seconds of an accidental scroll as a view.
User ID not verified.
Surely everyone has realised that *all* media funded research is heavily biased towards their own agenda by now? FB just got caught out this time. The work that ThinkTV churn out is also mostly garbage, as is Google’s. Another news flash – your media agency will mislead you at every opportunity to make sure they are maximising their own interests ahead of yours.
Every business should have the means and resources to make their own assessment of what works for them and what doesn’t, and not rely solely on this kind of stuff. Just stop being so f-ing lazy and do your own research
User ID not verified.
Facebook once again doing what they do best – spreading #fakenews
User ID not verified.
Where’s Ben Shepherd in all this? He’s gone conveniently quiet
User ID not verified.
Hi there,
You may already know this, but for the sake of clarity, Ben left PwC in May , and now works at CHE Proximity.
Thanks,
Vivienne – Mumbrella
Might be worth asking if Ben has a role in the writing of this report…
User ID not verified.
indeed
User ID not verified.
Maybe Ben’s at an Adobe Symposium, along with “every marketer with any influence”.
User ID not verified.
Ben Shepard has tried to set the record straight on the report but has poorly positioned Nielsen as a scapegoat. Extract below:
“The limitations of Nielsen Digital Panel in my opinion deserve greater scrutiny, and as an industry there needs to be questions around how relevant and valid this panel – which is still actively sold and maintained – is for the future”
So you have to ask yourself, why did he use the data in the first place if he doesn’t believe in it. I guess money (as always) was enough of an incentive to ignore the validity of the datasets in the first place.
User ID not verified.